My publisher has dubbed me "a leading atheist spokesperson." I didn't say this. I don't care if I am. They do it to sell books. So let's explore this. Am I? Let's take the issue of whether or not there is a historical person behind the Jesus cult, okay? Do I speak for you?

I think there was probably a historical founder to the Jesus cult, that he was a failed apocalyptic prophet. There are several skeptical scholars who have studied this issue and come to divergent opinions on the matter.

Skeptical scholars who think there is a man behind the myth:
Bart Ehrman (agnostic), Gerd Ludemann, Tim Callahan, and especially G.A. Wells (who was the leading mythicist of our generation but has since "repudiated" such a view).

Skeptical scholars who think there just isn't enough evidence to say one way or another: Hector Avalos, others?

Skeptical scholars who think it's probable that the Jesus story is a myth:
Robert Price, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, and Frank Zindler.

I'm only mentioning some of the representative scholars.

Given the nature of these divergent opinions of Jesus can the phrase "atheist spokesperson" have any meaning for the whole atheist community? Or, is it instead based on the issue at hand? Personally for me, no atheist speaks for me on every issue. While I have my heroes, it depends on the issue at hand.